RBPitboss #2 Athlete4life10 & Kalin

[athlete4life10]

Kalin has sent a response to CoW:

This is just my personal opinion (Kalin). I think that not accepting
the NAP (particularly that you are far from them) would be very
suspicious. Jowy's suggestion of gifting the troops or waiting a bit
more is good. I also think that at this point we cannot count as much
on the element of surprise and should expect them to be more prepared.

Here's another thing to consider: what if we don't all declare in the
same time? This may help as they would rush defenses on one side,
potentially leaving fewer troops on the other side. Whoever starts the
war however would be at a disadvantage, but since we are all very
committed it shouldn't matter much. Think about this and comment.

Thanks,
Kalin

[athlete4life10]

Although heaven knows we're willing to change rules mid-stream (yes, I'm still bitter), this is also my understanding. In RBP1 I have seen NAP deals that include ROP, gifting units, etc.

I would like to know something (and I'd probably be bitter in your shoes too). When you whipped that archer and we started the whole stink, would you have attacked out at that point given our warrior and chariot we're each solo?

[sunrise089]

I would like to know something (and I'd probably be bitter in your shoes too). When you whipped that archer and we started the whole stink, would you have attacked out at that point given our warrior and chariot we're each solo?

As I recall, no. But that recollection is hazy, regoarrarr or darrell may remember better.

[kalin]

I may be in the minority here, but to me a NAP means "neither party can declare war on each other". Since the NAP is not enforced by the game and there's no clear definition to it, anybody can make of it whatever they wants. I personally prefer the above definition because it keeps the concept simple.

That being said, one can attach other clauses to a NAP. For example, we attached a land partition to our NAP with Incas.

Regarding changing the rules midway: it was done through vote and it's bound to happen. Most of us don't have enough experience to fully understand the implications of all actions. I'd rather have the rules changed, than play with rules that a majority dislikes.

Regarding playing pitboss MP: I think that most people in this community want to play MP like SP with human opponents. I certainly do. I don't want for example to do war by being logged in simultaneously with an opponent while competing to see who can click faster.

Those were my personal opinions.

Kalin

[sunrise089]

Regarding changing the rules midway: it was done through vote and it's bound to happen. Most of us don't have enough experience to fully understand the implications of all actions. I'd rather have the rules changed, than play with rules that a majority dislikes.

I'll try to say just one more thing...and I really did primarily post to agree with Athlete's NAP understanding...but imagine a scenario where the Indians are likely to win the game. Can the other teams call a vote and agree that "Any civ may win the game except India? If India is declared the in-game winner the second place civ is the real winner." I think most or all people would say this is too far. I think most people would also agree a tiny rule change, like deciding a default pause length when a team requests one, would be OK. My question is where the scale tips from fair to abusive, and my concern is that I didn't see that question weighed. My opinion is that in order to prevent rule abuse we should maintain a strong presumption that the rules we go into the game with stick.

[kalin]

I'll try to say just one more thing...and I really did primarily post to agree with Athlete's NAP understanding...but imagine a scenario where the Indians are likely to win the game. Can the other teams call a vote and agree that "Any civ may win the game except India? If India is declared the in-game winner the second place civ is the real winner." I think most or all people would say this is too far. I think most people would also agree a tiny rule change, like deciding a default pause length when a team requests one, would be OK. My question is where the scale tips from fair to abusive, and my concern is that I didn't see that question weighed. My opinion is that in order to prevent rule abuse we should maintain a strong presumption that the rules we go into the game with stick.

Hi Sunrise,

I understand you may be still a bit upset, but we can still disagree politely right?

Your example with India is excessive and you know it. I could add something more: what if India hacks the game and give themselves nukes in the medieval era? Would a vote to strip them of winning make sense?

That being said, I actually agree with you that changing the rules mid-game should not be taken lightly, and I don't think it was. People in this community are reasonable and they seem to vote according to a desire to improve the experience, rather than gain an unfair advantage. Where the scale tips from fair to abusive is most likely a subjective thing. However, I honestly don't think that having rules set in stone at the beginning of the game is the final answer. We have to trust that common sense will prevail when it comes to a majority voting.

Kalin

[Ruff_Hi]

I didn't fully follow the events leading up the the rule change, not what the actual change was ... however, I can see some very interesting (and detailed!) discussions in the near future regarding various rules in RBPB3 (eg what is allowed and what is not allowed during enforced war windows).

[kalin]

I didn't fully follow the events leading up the the rule change, not what the actual change was ... however, I can see some very interesting (and detailed!) discussions in the near future regarding various rules in RBPB3 (eg what is allowed and what is not allowed during enforced war windows).

I hope you'll participate in the discussion Ruff

The rule change was to enforce a turn split when only 2 civs are at war, where one civ makes moves during the first half, and the other during the second half.

Kalin

[Ruff_Hi]

I hope you'll participate in the discussion Ruff

The rule change was to enforce a turn split when only 2 civs are at war, where one civ makes moves during the first half, and the other during the second half.

Kalin

Dont' worry - I will. I saw some of the effects of the definition of 'moves'. I have some pretty concrete comments ready and waiting.

[athlete4life10]

HRE to CoW:

Kalin, I agree with you. Gifting troops is indeed an option, How would you feel about that, Dantski?
That way you can get our troops before t100 and attack. Makes coordinating things even easier.
Declining the NAP offer will rouse a lot of suspicion...

Just waiting for Dantski and Athlete to give their opinions before replying to India.

Regards,
Nakor

Mali to CoW:

Gifting units is definitely a good idea, not only does it achieve what you said, but it makes coordinating an attack far easier. It will hurt my economy a bit though so would appreciate donations of gold later to make up for it.

Extra 5 turns won't hurt.

Me to CoW:

Hey guys,

I'm ok with gifting considering it is not attached to your nap. We
should have our units ready for T100 so this will coordingate quite
nicely.

Athlete

Kalin to CoW:

Just a small advice: if you gift troops, do it just 1T before the
attack, otherwise it will be very obvious if India has your graphs,
and I'd think they have at least Dantski's. A big spike in power
cannot mean too many things

Kalin